Plane crash at Orange Airport
 

A light plane has crashed at Orange Regional Airport.

Two people are being treated for serious burns to their head and hands after the plane crashed about 7pm.

A male and female, both aged in their 40s, are in critical conditions and are being airlifted to Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital.

The woman has been flown by NSW Ambulance helicopter and the man will be taken in a second helicopter.

Seven NSW Ambulance road crews also attended the scene.

According to local rural fire service, Canobolas Zone NSW RFS, the plane caught fire.

“Brigades are on scene as a light plane has come down at Orange Airport causing it to catch fire. The occupants have been released and transported to hospital. Police, Ambulance and FRNSW are also on scene,” the RFS said.

DF.

https://www.centralwesterndaily.com....-photos-video/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/...15-p4zfi7.html

FlightAware shows a SR22 landing at YORG earlier in the day - VH-SGS.

DF.

Looks more like VH-PDC. Thoughts and prayers with the occupants.

Looking at the tracking for that aircraft, I concur. Owned by INTACT AVIATION PTY LTD.

DF.

Orange light plane crash pilot and instructor were testing aircraft before crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The ABC have got the pic wrong, a Cirrus does not look like an Aztec!

Even though that Aztec looks a bit banged up I still reckon the occupants got out in better condition than those in the Cirrus!

DF.

I think Catherine Fitzsimons was the pilot in the CASA Out 'N Back videos ...

Yes that is correct. I hope they both have a speedy recovery.

AWB

Would any of them really know A) It's a Cirrus that's down, and B) The Cirrus (Cirrus's/Cirri?!?) are fitted with a BRS?

Folks,
It has been claimed that that terrible accident at Orange occurred because they were doing a biennial flight review at night. As we know, in the past this has not been required – it only came in with Part 61 – and it is not required in other countries in the world.

Is this evidence of CASA rules ending up with a serious accident, where people have been burnt and could have resulted in fatalities?

This should be looked at.
Tootle pip!!

Make up your mind:

• It's not dangerous to fly at night and you don't need a Night VFR endorsement, ala USA or;
• It is dangerous to fly at night and you need a Night VFR endorsement ala Oz; or
• It is dangerous to fly at night and you don't need a Night VFR endorsement - based on the above and your other statements

feedback....

It's dangerous to fly at night in any single engine aircraft.

Any night flying and the Night Visual Rating, should be done in a twin, with an instructor only and night circuits should be icus only.

Night flying in a single engine turbine seems to be reliable at the moment.

Everyone is aware that night circuit training at a capital city airport,, shouldn't be done in a single,
as there's too much residential area around.

Correct me if i'm wrong, the news article about the Orange accident mentioned, the aircraft veered
off the runway to the right on landing and caught fire, the training pilot pulled the instructor out of aircraft in the last
moment and saved their life.

There was talk the runway lights went out during landing but the aerodrome cameras confirmed, the
lights stayed on.

Both pilots were burnt and injured.

Hope both persons can recover and live a normal life.

You joke I trust☺

I'm referring to general aviation flying training at night.

I'm sure you're quite qualified to do a forced landing at night time and land on a highway, over a residential area and walk away from the aircraft uninjured.

Only if you're superman.

I'm sure it feels wonderful, flying in a single over terrain such as Katoomba at night.

At least in a twin gives an added safety factor.

When a single runs into a house a night whilst conducting circuits, rules will change in a heartbeat.

i'm not CASA mister, it's up to them, so don't panic.

Plane impacted ground just outside perimeter of airport. Understand this happened after take-off.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2018-038/

Lets wait and see if it was engine failure or not. If it was, would a singe failure in a twin immediately after take-off (crash at perimeter) be safer than failure in a single? Especially at night? Or would the remaining engine fly you to the crash?

Folks,
Whether you like it or not, flying a training/checking ride at night adds an extra element of risk ---- simple fact.

This is why legitimate airlines will not conduct asymmetric or a number of other exercises in non-normal configuration at night, outside a simulator.

We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two.

Glib statements like "the aeroplane doesn't know it night" do no more than reveal a distinct lack of understanding of risk management --- but we know there are no shortages of smart -a ---s (alecks) in aviation.

The fact remains that having to do a biennial flight review at night, not done anywhere else I know of , and introduced by CASA without, as far as I can find, any risk analysis/justification or directed consultation, adds an additional avoidable risk factor.

Is CASA going to demand night asymmetric in a twin for a biennial review. My advice to anybody who is confronted by such a demand is to flatly refuse, it is just not worth the additional risk.

As most of you probably don't know, there are a number of CASA FOIs whom, it has been alleged,(which means I could, but I will not, give identifiable examples) will not fly a night test of any kind in a single, I wonder why that is??

Tootle pip!!

It feels more comfortable flying a twin at night and doing night training circuits in a twin than single.

Most instructors don't want to do NVFR training in a single because they value their life.

If someone wants to fly at night in a single, they can go ahead.

Night flying is safer when flown in a twin, or flown in any turbine/jet equipment where there's two pilots up front.

In reference to the accident, i'm referring to the TV channel news i saw yesterday.

Have to wait and see what the cause was, it's not a nice sight seeing pilots hurt.

@ Leadsled

Sure, night is higher risk than day

Twin can be safer than single. Certainly if failure when established in the circuit. Twin may not be much better if one fails at or immediately after take off.

Have to wait and see what happened here. Single failure immediately after take-off? - twin may (or may not) have helped. Other failure? - twin would probably not have helped. Loss of orientation and CFIT? - twin would not have helped.

and I see it was a New Moon on the night of the 15th ....

Flying in any type of aircraft is not without its dangers. So no point singling out night single-engine ops.
Be it a single/twin, night/day, VFR/IFR or a jet at 35,000', hitting the ground or water in an uncontrolled state is going to hurt!
Let's not get carried away!

Leadsled:
"We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two."

I call BS on your statement.

We also have an Embraer at Darwin Airport, 2010, and a Conquest at Renmark 12 months ago - both in broad daylight.

The aircraft doesn't know if it is day or night. You may describe this as a "glib statement" but it is a fact.

Hi Leaddie

Try 29 May 1989, C210 FMW at Alice Springs

That wouldn't have happened in daylight either

So your opinion is that you should not undergo recurrent checks to validate your competency on a rating that you hold? Extending that somewhat, why bother performing a CIR renewal in actual IMC? Afterall, it is less risky to do it in day-VMC, isn't it? Actually, why not do all training in Day-VMC? The fundamental issue in most of these accidents seems to be overconfidence by the checker, in that he is unable/unwilling to correct a trainees mistake resulting in a CFIT prang. Many times over. Not necessarily when they happen. Of course it is easier to see a situation going pear-shaped during the day, but if you cannot detect the same scenario at night, then you have no business conducting the renewal...The trainee deserves better,

It's all well and good to say that 'proper' operators and the airlines will use a sim for riskier operations, and that is a valid claim when a suitable simulator is available...Most times, for GA anyway, this is simply not the case. That is the unfortunate reality, whether or not it is liked.

Some of you blokes need to get a reality check. Of course flying at night has more risk than day, but only slightly and mainly if the aircraft should suffer an engine failure (a rare event in a certified GA aircraft ) or due to spacial disorientation. The key to most of the risk minimization IMHO is currency on type. I have seen a 747 captain with 1000's hrs experiance nearly crash a C172 on landing by flaring way too high and wash his airspeed off because he was not current on type. How do we know if the Orange crash was not due to simular? There is a risk in all flying be it very small. What do you blokes want? A rule that prohibits all flying unless the aircraft has 4 jet engines, 4 aircrew and capable of auto land at all airports. Better make it freight only too far to risky for passengers.

Is night currency required in the USA?
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.

Said corporate jet jockey is authorised to perform operations under the NVFR so long as his MECIR renewal is current. CAsA sez so. Why go renew your NVFR currency when your CIR authorises it anyway unless you plan on letting your CIR lapse?

FAA requirements here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.57

The FAA only require night proficiency for passenger carrying but it is only 3 takeoff and landings in the last 90 days. No passengers no requirement.

Also have a read of the requirements to keep an instrument rating current over there. If you fly regularly no need for an IPC... They must have carnage in the skies...

I think you will find that is only if you are exercising the privilege of the NVFR rating. If you are conducting ops under the NVFR by virtue of your CIR the requirements of Part 61.965 do not apply.